The emeritus king, during the funeral of Grand Duke John of Luxembourg in May 2019. REUTERS
The Court of Appeal for England and Wales has granted a partial victory to Juan Carlos I in the trial against Corinna Larsen in the British court.
The magistrates have agreed with the legal team of the king emeritus, against the previous sentence of magistrate Matthew Nicklin, and consider that the acts carried out against the former sentimental partner of the former head of state in the years prior to his abdication enjoy immunity and therefore cannot be tried on British soil.
A very important part of the facts referred to by Larsen in her harassment claim refers to that period, between 2012 and 2014. For example, the allegedly threatening visit made to her in London by the then general director of the CNI, Félix Sanz Roldán,
More information
A British court allows Juan Carlos I to partially appeal the sentence that denied him immunity
“The facts of the claim were clear and unambiguous,” concludes the Court of Appeal.
“General Sanz Roldán acted at all times in his capacity as director of the CNI.
In this way, both he and the CNI operatives with whom he acted were operating as agents of the Spanish State during all that time.
And since the State is always responsible for those acts carried out 'under the color of authority' [the legal principle established in judicial precedents and alleged by the defense of Juan Carlos I], whether or not they have been authorized or whether or not they are legal according to with national or international laws, these acts are attributable to the Spanish State”, say the magistrates in their sentence.
The conclusion is essential
Although the main trial continues, and the forecast indicates that the first hearings will take place in the middle of next year, the decision released on Tuesday complicates Larsen's judicial strategy.
By removing from the story of the lawsuit the parts in which the immunity of the emeritus king is in force, the narrative thread —already indirectly questioned by Judge Nicklin— loses consistency.
In fact, during the appeal hearing, it was one of the magistrates who signed the sentence this Tuesday who compared to "a Trojan horse" the idea that the legal team of Juan Carlos I's ex-partner continued to use it in later phases of the trial events that occurred before the abdication, and therefore procedurally ruled out when immunity was applied.
The Court of Appeal also deals a setback to the judge in the case, who at the time suggested to Larsen's lawyers that they modify their claim to make it easier to argue the lack of immunity.
Nicklin asked the plaintiff's legal team to point out that Sanz Roldán had acted as a friend of Juan Carlos I, and in his personal capacity, in order to weaken the idea that he had operated under a cloak of public authority.
It was difficult to maintain that the then general director of the CNI carried out an order from the then Head of State simply in a private capacity.
"The judge was wrong to conclude that the conduct indicated during the phase prior to the abdication was private," says the judgment of the Court of Appeal.
“There was no formal request for an amendment (...) The way it was addressed was amazingly informal.
Despite knowing for months the question of immunity raised in June 2021 [by the defense of Juan Carlos I], it was not until shortly before the hearing that the plaintiff decided to point out an alleged "personal relationship" between the defendant and the general Sanz Roldán”, says the sentence.
The magistrates also confirm Judge Nicklin's previous decision to reject the existence of "
personal injury "
, in the English term) that activate the exception to the immunity contemplated in the State Immunity Law in its 5th section.
"As the judge has correctly held, an alleged allegation of stress or anxiety derived from a certain type of conduct defined as harassment is not, by itself, an accusation of personal injury."
Although Larsen's legal team has presented in recent months a medical report signed by Dr. Frank Farnham, in which express reference would be made to "depression of mild to moderate severity, mild to moderate anxiety disorder and symptoms suggesting a post-traumatic stress disorder”, that document was not in the initial complaint, so the Court of Appeals has not taken it into account.
Larsen's lawsuit against Juan Carlos I is resolved in the British civil jurisdiction.
At no time are jail sentences, arrest warrants or extradition requests raised.
It's about money.
And, above all, the possibility of ending the matter is still on the table if the parties reach an out-of-court agreement.
At the end of December 2020, the plaintiff recounted in her claim for damages the harassment that, always according to her version, she had suffered directly from the king emeritus or from people on his behalf, such as the former director of the CNI Félix Sanz Roldán.
The claim of the emeritus, according to Larsen, was to recover the almost 65 million euros that he had transferred to the businesswoman "irrevocably" in 2012, or resume the sentimental relationship, and this claim gave rise to the alleged threats, defamation, electronic surveillance and follow-ups to which she and her team of advisers were subjected.
The consequence of all this, according to her writing, is anxiety and anguish that have required medical treatment, the deterioration of relations with her children and relatives, and the loss of many of her multi-millionaire clients.
Larsen requested in her lawsuit a court order that prevented Juan Carlos I from communicating with her, following her, defaming her or approaching her at a distance of less than 150 meters.
And he demanded compensation, which he did not quantify, for damages.
